Advertisement

June 16, 2013

Court Rejects Immunity Argument In Dispute Over Sewer Overflow

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a grant of summary judgment under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, finding that a sewer district was not immune under the discretionary function.

In Farley v. Hammond Sanitary District, the plaintiffs sued after a rainstorm caused a sewer system to overflow and discharge sewage into homes. The trial court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the sewer district was immune for the manner in which it operated the sewer system. The Court of Appeals, however, determined that there was an issue of fact as to whether the cause of the flooding was the planning decisions as to how to run the system – which would  entitle the district to immunity – or was the negligent way maintenance was performed – which would be an “operational” function not entitled to immunity under the discretionary function test.

The Court of Appeals also rejected a claim that the sewage discharge into the homes resulted in a takings, finding that no taking occurred because of the brief amount of time the sewage was present even though it did harm to some of the homeowners personal property.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Mark Crandley is a partner in the Litigation Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. Mr. Crandley has a diverse practice that concentrates on appeals, municipal and constitutional law, employee benefits, probate and guardianship matters as well as general commercial litigation.

317-261-7924

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.